Multispecies Grazing of Beef Cattle and Sheep in Mississippi1

The Professional Animal Scientist 9:1-5

Multispecies Grazing of Beef Cattle and Sheep in Mississippi 1 S. L. BANES2 , H. W. ESSIG 3, L. H. BOY03, C. E. CANTRELL3, and A. W. COLE 4 Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS 39762

there was no difference in the number of species of weeds due to grazing treatment. (Key Words: Multispecies Grazing, Beef Cattle, Sheep, Production Traits.)

Abstract

Fifty-four cows and 27 ewes were randomly assigned by breed type, weight, body condition, and age into three replications of two treatments. The CONTROL treatment consisted of 27 cows, and the cow plus sheep (C+SH) treatment consisted of 27 cows and 27 ewes. Each replication consisted of nine cows grazing alone (CONTROL) and nine cows grazing with nine ewes (C+SH). The 3-yr study was conducted from July 1987 to September 1990. There was no effect of treatment on cow weights or cow condition scores. There was no difference in birth weight (38.7 vs. 37.1 kg), actual weaning weight (254.5 vs. 241.3 kg), adjusted 205-d weight (250.7 vs. 238.2 kg), AOG (1.03 vs. 0.98 kg), or weaning weight of offspring per 45.4 kg of dam weight (19.6 vs. 21.2 kg) between CONTROL and C+SH treatments. There was no difference in CP (9.32 vs. 9.50%), IVDMD (51.30 vs. 49.68%), estimated DE (2.68 vs. 2.61 kcal/g OM), or kg OM/ ha (1,305.0 vs. 1,086.7). The observed gross income per cow for CONTROL and C+SH was ($118.75 vs. $90.86); however, when the gross income per ewe ($17.97) was added to the C+SH income, the total gross income for both the cow and ewe was $108.83 and this was $10 per cow less than when the cows were grazed without sheep. There were more (P<.05) weeds present in the CONTROL pasture than in the C+SH pasture (55 vs. 37); however,

Introduction

The practice of grazing two or more domestic species together or separately on the same land unit in a growing season is known as common-use, dual-use, or multispecies grazing. Multispecies grazing has long been a standard component of livestock production in New Zealand and Australia (2, 4, 6, 7). In the U.S. it has been evaluated on variable intermountain terrain where a variety of forbs, shrubs, and grasses are produced (3, 5, 9). Grazing more than one livestock species has not been a common practice in the Southeast because most pastures are established as a monoculture practice which would tend to reduce benefits from grazing two or more livestock species within a grazing season. Stoddart et al. (14) stated that common use can result in more uniform utilization of forage species and areas than is obtained by single use, provided numbers and kinds of animals are commensurate with forage production. Beef cattle production in the Southeastern United States is often an inefficient and unprofitable enterprise (8). Umberger et al. (15) compared production of beef cattle alone to beef cattle plus sheep and showed a 29% increase in net income from adding one ewe per existing cow. Improved management of high-quality forage species through the use of multispecies grazing can make both beef cattle and sheep more productive and competitive. Objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate diversified management of existing land areas from nontraditional use of multispecies grazing of beef

1Approved for publication as J. Art. No. J-8093 of the Mississippi Agric. and For.Exp. Sta., Mississippi State Univ. 2Present address: Louisiana Coop. Ext. Serv., Ruston, LA. 3Dep. Anim. and Dairy Sci., Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762. 4Dept. Plant Pathol. and Weed Sci., Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762. Reviewed by K.S. Lusby and T. W. White.

1

2

BANES ET AL.

cattle and sheep; 2) determine the performance of cattle and sheep grazing together versus cattle grazed alone; and 3) measure forage growth, quality, and weed species under common-use grazing. Methods

Data were collected at the Leveck Animal Research Center, Mississippi State University, from July 1987 to October 1990. Fifty-four cows and 27 ewes were used each year in this study. Animals were randomly assigned on the basis of breed, weight, body condition, and age, into three replications of two treatment groups. One group consisted of nine cows grazing alone (CONTROL), and the other consisted of nine cows grazing with nine ewes (C+SH). Cattle used were of two genotypes typical in the Southeastern United States. Brahman x Angus crossbred cows were in two replications and Santa Gertrudis cows in the third. Calves were sired by Polled Hereford and Charolais bulls, to be born during February or March of each year. Ewes consisted of Hampshire, Suffolk, and Hampshire x Suffolk crossbred ewes. Lambs were born in spring and sired by Dorset and Suffolk rams. Parturition of each species occurred in the respective pasture area and management after parturition was consistent with typical management procedures for each species. Cow weights (nonshrunk) and condition scores (12) were recorded in winter (January), spring (April), summer (July), and fall (October) of each year. Calf weights were collected at birth and weaning. All cows were palpated each October, and open cows were replaced with bred cows to maintain equal numbers across each treatment group. Ewe weights and condition scores were taken during July and September of each year. Lamb weights were taken at birth, 60 d, and 120 d. Ewes were shorn during April and September (before breeding). At weaning, lambs were assigned a market value based on weight and price. During 1990 all sheep were removed from the trial on February 2 because excessive rain caused mud in lamb shelters, and sheep were not replaced until June 1. Both sheep and cattle were supplemented with hay, grain, protein source, or combinations as

needed. Ewes were flushed each year before breeding and fed until iambs were weaned. Lambs were creep fed each year, but calves were not. All feeding of ewes and lambs occurred in their respective field shelter. Throughout the study few sheep were observed eating hay that was put in each of the pastures. During 1988 there was a severe drought from April until July that required the feeding of hay during May and June. Pastures were used as replications in this study. Three adjoining 10-ha pastures were cross fenced into six 5-ha pastures. Each treatment was randomly located within half of each 10-ha pasture. The forage system was a predominately bermudagrass base with Marshall ryegrass sod seeded in October. Each pasture was fertilized in accordance with soil test recommendations for phosphate and potash. Ammonium nitrate was applied at the rate of 224 kg/ha after annual ryegrass was planted and during the spring and summer of each year. Pastures were clipped at least once a year or as needed. At monthly intervals, forage was sampled and weed species were identified and counted at 10 randomly assigned areas in each 5-ha pasture. Weed counts and species were determined for each 5-ha pasture by taking a string, 6.1 m in length, from each of 10 predetermined markers counting numbers and species of weeds touching the string. These 10 location counts were averaged to give the weed counts per month for each pasture. The different species per month were totaled to give a total number of species per pasture for the year. Forage samples were obtained by cutting a strip, 6.1 m long by 50.1 cm wide to a height of 2.5 cm, with a lawn mower. Forage samples were dried at 70 C, combined, and ground through a Wiley mill fitted with a 1-mm screen. A sample from each 5-ha pasture was obtained using a sample splitter and stored until analyzed. All forage samples were analyzed using AOAC (1) methods for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (16). Digestible energy (DE) was estimated using the prediction equation DE = .4820 + .0429 (IVDMD) which was determined by Prichard et al. (11). Gross income per cow-calf and ewe-Iamb was calculated

3

MULTISPECIES GRAZING

from the annual gross income by deducting $297.53 (10) per cow and $67.78 (14) for a ewe. Experimental units were means for each treatment within each pasture. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a split-plot arrangement of CONTROL and C+SH as the whole-plot treatments and years as the subplot treatments. Analysis of variance was performed using the general linear model procedure of SAS (13). All tests were considered significant if Pvalues were <.05.

TABLE 1. Three-year average cow weights and condition scores by treatment and season. Treatment Source

CONTROL C+SH

SEMs

Winter wt, kg Springwt, kg Summer wt. kg Fall wt. kg Winter cond scoreb Spring cond scoreb Summer cond scoreb Fall cond scoreb

586.7 519.4 520.8 551.7 7.8 7.1 7.1 7.6

4.6 7.5 7.7 6.2 .1 .2 .1 .1

575.9 505.1 510.8 540.2 7.7 6.8 6.9 7.5

aStandard error of the mean. bCondition score: 1= emaciated, 7 =good flesh and carries considerable fat, 8 =very fleshy and overconditioned, 9 =extremely fat.

Results and Discussion

There were no influences of seasons (winter, spring, summer, or fall) on condition scores (Table 1). The CONTROL body weights and condition scores tended to be higher than C+SH cow weights and condition scores. There was no difference in cow weight by treatments by replications except for replication 1, summer weight which can be explained by a shortage of forage due to the drought in 1988. There was a difference due to treatment for condition score for replication 1 during spring, summer, and fall and for replication 2 for summer. The occurrence of treatment by pasture interactions for weight and condition score may be explained by the CONTROL pasture having more (P<.05) forage DM than the C+SH pasture (1,326.75 vs. 827.53 kg/ha). There were no differences in cow weights due to treatment except for fall 1988, at which time the CONTROL cows were heavier than the C+SH cows. Control cows had higher condition scores for spring in 1988 and 1989, and fall condition scores in 1988. Control cows were consistently heavier and had higher condition scores. Differences occurring in 1988 can be explained by a severe drought from April 1988 until August 1988. The increased number of total animal units that grazed the C+SH pastures, coupled with the drought, caused a decrease in the available forage for the C+SH pastures. All pastures were supplemented with hay during May and June of 1988 due to the decrease in available forage. Although the CONTROL cows tended to weigh more than the C+SH cows, when the ewe weights were added to the cow weights, the C+SH pastures had more total livestock weight and more animal

units than the CONTROL pastures (Table 2). One animal unit was considered to be 500 kg of live weight composed of cows, or cows and ewes. There were 1.1 to 1.2 more animal units in C+SH pastures when ewes were added to the pastures, but this does not take into account the additional weight from calves and lambs. The additional animal unit per pasture due to sheep suggests that an additional cow should have been stocked in the CONTROL treatment to give equal animal units per treatment. The benefit of adding one ewe per existing cow was apparently due to differences in animal units per treatment. There were no differences between treatments for calf birth weight, adjusted 205-d weight, actual weaning weight, or ADG (Table 3). However, calves from the CONTROL cows tended to be higher at all weights than calves from the C+SH cows. Although

TABLE 2. Three-year average of total dam weight and animal units for season by treatment. Oamwt. kg

Animal unitsC

Season

CONTROL a C+SH b

CONTROL C+SH

Winter Spring Summer Fall

5,280.ae 4,674.7'l 4,687.1 8 4.965.~

5.868.~ 5,230.4d 5,881.Jd 5.546.ad

10.6' 9.3' 9.4' 9.9'

11.79 10.59 10.69 11.1 g

aCONTROL 3-yr average total weight of 9 cows. bC+SH 3-yr average total weight of cows plus the 3-yr average weight of 9 ewes of 685 kg. cOne animal unit is equal to 500 kg live weight (cow and ewe). d,eWeight means in the same row within a season not followed by a common letter are different (P<.05). ',9Animal unit means in the same row withina season not followed by a common letter are different (P<.05).

4

BANES ET AL.

TABLE 3. Three-year average birth weight, adjusted 205-0 weaning weight, actual weaning weight, and average daily gain of calves. Treatment Traits

CONTROL C+SH

Birth wt, kg Adj 205-d wt, kg Actual wwfJ, kg ADG, kg

38.7 250.7 254.S 1.03

37.1 2382 241.3 0.98

.62 4.67 6.84 .02

Treatment Trait8

CONTROL C+SH

SEMb

CP,% OM, kglha IVOMO,% EOE, kcaVgOM

9.3 1,305.0 51.3 2.7

.14 113.87 .76 .03

9.5 1,086.7 49.7 2.6

aCp =crude protein; OM, kglha =forage OM yield in kg per ha; IVOMO = in vitro dry matter digestibility; EOE = estimated digestible energy as

aStandard error of the mean. bwwt =weaning weight.

calculated from Pritchard et al. (11) equation. bStandard error of the mean.

the CONTROL calves tended to wean more total weight per hectare (424 kg) than the C+SH calves (396 kg), the C+SH treatment tended to wean more total weight per hectare (508 kg) when the lamb weaning weight per hectare (112 kg) was added to the calf weaning weight (Table 4). The combination of cattle and sheep gave an additional 84 kg per hectare of total weaning weight. There were no differences for CP, DM yield per ha, IVDMD,or estimated DE between treatments (Table 5). This would suggest that performance differences were due to difference in intake. CONTROL pastures tended to have more forage DM than the C+SH pastures. This can be attributed to the greater number of animal units grazing on the C+SH pasture. The monthly weed count was greater in the control pastures during 1987, 1988, and 1990 and tended to be higher in 1989 (Table 6). There were 19 species of weeds identified among the six pastures during the 3-yr study. There was no difference in species of weeds due to treatment and no pasture contained all 19 species of weeds found in the six pastures. The monthly weed count decreased over time with more (P<.05) weeds present in 1987 and 1988 than in 1989 and 1990. CONTROL pastures had a higher (P<.05) 3-yr aver-

TABLE 4. Cow and calf and ewe and lamb weights as influenced by treatment. Treatment Source

CONTROL

N

C+SH

N

Avg cow wt, kg Avg ewe wt, kg Avg calf wwt,8, kg Avg lamb wwt,8, kg Calf wwtI', kglha Lamb wwtI', kglha Total wwt,8, kglha

538.9

27

254.5

25

525.1 73.7 241 .3 44.5 396 112 508

27 27 25 38

awwt = weaning weight.

TABLE S. Forage data by treatment.

424 424

age number of weeds than the C+SH pastures (55 vs. 37; Table 6). This factor can be attributed to the fact that grazing sheep and cattle together gives the most efficient and even use of entire pastures by reducing the impact of selective use by each animal species for preferred plants and areas in each pasture (3, 5, 14). The increased number of animal units in the C+SH treatment may also have forced the animals to consume more weeds than when cows were grazed alone. There was no difference in the number of weed species between treatments. The major weeds reduced through grazing were foxtail and little barley. This is important because most other weeds can readily be controlled with herbicide application. Gross income per cow was similar but CONTROL cows tended to produce higher income

TABLE 6. Weed data by year and treatment. Treatment Date 7/1187 -1211187 Avg weeds/moB Total species/yr 1/1188 -1211188 Avg weeds/moB Total species/yr 1/1189 -1211189 Avg weeds/moB Total species/yr 1/1190 -1011190 Avg weeds/moB Total species/yr Year average Weeds/mo Total species/yr

CONTROL

C+SH

si'

43" S

9

7i' 14

53" 12

sst'

ssb

9

9

2&' S

11' S

ssb

3'" 9

10

aValues are means of 30 counts of weeds per treatment (10 locations in a pasture with three pastures per treatment). b,cMeans in the same row not followed by a common letter are different (P<.OS).

MULTISPECIES GRAZING TABLE 7. Three-year average gross income per cow, ewe, and treatment. Treatment Gross income

CONTROL

C+SH

Per cow, $b Per ewe, $C Per treatment, $

118.75

90.86 17.97 108.83

118.75

aStandard error of the mean. bCalf value at $.80 Ib ($1.7611
($118.75 vs. $90.86) than the C+SH cows (Table 7). When the gross income per cow in the C+SH treatment ($90.86) and the gross income per ewe ($17.97) were added together ($108.83) the cows on the control treatment still showed a $10 advantage per cow. Conclusion

These results show that adding one ewe per existing cow can make it possible to wean more total livestock weight per unit of land, while helping to reduce the number of weeds in a pasture. The biggest disadvantage was that there tended to be a decrease in the amount of available forage for cows when sheep were added to existing cattle pastures, but this difference may have been due to unequal animal units per treatment.

5

Literature Cited 1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th Ed. Assoc. of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc. Arlington. 2. Boswell, C. C. and L. J. Cranshaw. 1978. Mixed grazing of cattle and sheep. Proc. New Zealand Soc. Anim. prod. 38:116. 3. Bowns, J. E. and D. H. Matthews. 1983. Cattle grazing with sheep, a plus for rangelands and production. Utah Sci. 44(2):38. 4. Brundson, R. V. 1975. The NAZSAP study group on internal parasites and animal production. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 35:51. 5. Cook, C. W. 1954. Common use of summer range by sheep and cattle. J. Range Manage. 28:216. 6. Hamilton, D. and J. G. Bath. 1970. Performance of sheep and cattle grazed separately and together. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. and Anim. Husb.16:5. 7. Harbord, M. W. 1984. Integrated management of sheep and Deer. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 44:171. 8. Hoveland, C. S. 1986. Beef-forage systems for the southeastern United States. J. Anim.Sci. 63:978. 9. Matthews, D. H., W. C. Foote, R. L. Hurst, and J. E. Bowns. 1986. Response of cattle and sheep under various grazing systems on high elevation summer ranges. Prof. Anim. Scientist 2(2):18. 10. MCES. 1991. Cost of establishing and maintaining forage crops in Mississippi. 11. Prichard, D. L., H. W. Essig, A. L. Haley, C. E. Cantrell, and R. W. Rogers. 1985. Energy level and genotypic influences on digestibility of feedstuffs by beef cattle. Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 123. 12. Richards, M. W., J. C. Spitzer, and M. B. Wamer. 1986. Effect of varying levels of postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive performance in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 62:300. 13. SAS. 1988. SAS User's Guide: Basics. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 14. Stoddart, L. A., A. D. Smith, and T. W. Box. 1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hili Book Co., New York. 3rd Ed. 532 pp. 15. Umb3rger, S. H., B. R. McKinnon, and A. L. Eller, Jr. 1983. Adding sheep to cattle for increased profits. Virginia Coop. Ext. ServoPubl. 410. 16. USDA. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agric. Handb. No. 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC.